Fake News

When Everything Is 'Fake News'

Has the phrase reached its saturation point?

|

Specialty Films

Yesterday an idiot fired a rifle in a D.C. restaurant because he was trying to investigate "PizzaGate," the latest, dumbest variation on the decades-old series of rumors that the country is governed by secret pedophile rings. (Fortunately, no injuries have been reported.) Since the gunman was inspired by a false story, his crime was promptly blamed on "fake news." Then some pundits tried to link his assault to Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Donald Trump's pick to be national security adviser, on the grounds that Flynn had promoted the PizzaGate story. But it turned out the general had actually been alluding to a separate conspiracy theory, so naturally the accusation against Flynn was then dubbed "fake news" too.

In the long-gone days of early 2016, fake news mostly meant clickbait sites that publish hoaxes, some with a satiric veneer and some just flatly aimed at tricking people; the stories could involve anything from Willie Nelson dying to a woman trying on tampons in a WalMart aisle. These days "fake news" still means that, but it also gets applied to highly partisan outlets that may be sloppy with their facts; and content factories that just don't care about their facts; and Russian disinformation campaigns, real or alleged; and pretty much any conspiracy theory that finds a foothold online. (Like PizzaGate.) Even a police sting got the "fake news" label last week because the operation included a deceptive press release. And of course it's also a phrase that people throw back in the mainstream media's faces any time the press botches a story.

In other words, "fake news" has become a catchall term for saying something false in public, otherwise known as the human condition.

This does not bode well for people who think they can find a fix to "the fake news problem," given that clickbait and rumors and disinformation and sloppy reporting and so on are all different things. They overlap, sure, but they're not the same phenomenon, and you're not going to find a one-size-fits-all solution to them—not unless your solution is "Introduce a little more skepticism to your media consumption habits." Of course, that's a good idea whether or not the news is fake.

NEXT: Tomorrow! Live Webstream w Katherine Mangu-Ward, Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t believe one word of this so-called story, “Jesse” “Walker”.

    1. Speaking of weird stories, whatever happened to the Great Clown Panic of 2016? It was day after day after day of clowns, then…nothing.

      1. That clown thing was to distract people from a security slipup by the Lizard People. The public just can’t handle the truth. [rustles tinfoil]

        1. Clearly, fake “news” needs to rapidly criminalized, as we have done in New York with the repugnant fulminations and “satire” of the trolls of the Net. Surely no one here would dare to defend the outrageous “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in America’s leading criminal “parody” case? See the documentation at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

      2. The clowns were just a passing story. Nothing to see here, move along people.

      3. whatever happened to the Great Clown Panic of 2016?

        It dissipated after Halloween.

      4. Hilary lost.

        1. +1, you win today

      5. The story is being suppressed by the Reverse Vampires! The Scary Clowns are their allies (along with the Saucer People)!

      6. The Clown got elected to President. Panic over.

      7. THE CLOWNS ARE IN THE WHITE HOUSE

        1. And have been for quite some time.

      8. whatever happened to the Great Clown Panic of 2016?

        They finally got the guy

      9. Clowns to the left of me; jokers to the right.

        1. Clearly, you reside in Juggalo Country.

    2. It’s all the Glibertarians who are spreading all the false news! About how Government Almighty does NOT love us ALL, deeply and passionately!

      To help correct this “fake news”, let us all now sing a song of praise…

      Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

      Government loves me, This I know,
      For the Government tells me so,
      Little ones to GAWD belong,
      We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
      Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
      Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
      And gives me all that I might need!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      DEA, CIA, KGB,
      Our protectors, they will be,
      FBI, TSA, and FDA,
      With us, astride us, in every way!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

  2. People believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest. In fact, it’s their only method of rebellion against ‘the man’. The solution is of course to establish a government office of fake news eradication.

  3. The latest in “fake news”?

    “El Se?or Presidente Trumpo will save jobs one Carrier at a time.”

    1. Trumpkins are literally raping the millenials.

      1. Yes, all that pussy grabbing I hear that is transpiring across The Pond there is the USA! Why The Rape of Nanking pales in significance!

    2. Was there a story about Trump’s recent tweet storm about how he’s going to punish businesses that dare leave the U.S.? I want to see the story here so I can see all his defenders try to rationalize it.

      1. What is there to rationalize? It is what it is. Before you demand anyone try, explain why it is bad other than appeals to authority and intellectual purity. I don’t see how it is illegal. It is not unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit protectionism.

        So if a company says “we are moving to Mexico” and the government says “fine but say good bye to ever getting a government contract” what is the problem in your view?

        If Trump sicked the IRS or the FBI on them, that would be illegal and an abuse of power. But I haven’t seen where he has said just how he will punish them. Have you? So, short of misusing the IRS or FBI, how is this anything beyond an attack on Libertarian purity? And since Trump isn’t and never claimed to be a Libertarian, how is his attacking Libertarian purity such a big deal or any different than every other President who were not Libertarians?

        1. Thank you for obliging, John. This made my day.

          1. How about you answer the questions? Are you too stupid to defend your own position? Do I need to do it for you?

            Let’s try this again. Is what he is proposing necessarily illegal or unconstitutional? If so, why? And if not, what then about it offends you beyond “but free market”? How is this any different than Obama saying that any business that refuses to hire gays can’t have a government contract? Isn’t that punishing them?

            I understand you don’t like this. But you need to be able to explain why and why this is some new and different threat rather than just what Presidents have been doing for a very long time. If you are too stupid to be able to articulate that, it must suck to be you. I don’t think being stupid and unable to do anything but emote appeals to authority is a very good way to go through life but maybe you like it.

            1. “But free market” is the only answer I need.

              1. Not if you want to convince anyone. Do you even know why you like the free market? Or is just pretty words to you? Do you know how the market works? My guess is you know very little about actual markets and instead the term is just a substitute for shit I like.

                1. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Just the opposite. I want you to continue to be a dumbfuck so I can mock you.

                  1. Yes, Thesius, it is obvious you are not trying to convince me or anyone else of anything. That is because you lack the ability to do that. And if anyone is a dumb fuck, it is the person who doesn’t even understand or can articulate their own views. How many softballs and invites to make your case can I throw you before you stop whiffing? Would you like me to make the case for you? Give you an example of how this works? I can but I am not sure that would help you very much.

                    1. We’re on a libertarian site, John. I’m not going to bother explaining why or how the free market works, as I’d assuming everyone here has a basic comprehension of it. I’m not interested in defending my views to the likes of you. If that gives you the sads, all the better for me to watch you throw a tantrum.

                    2. Considering the utility of your position for a moment… Occasionally, people from elsewhere float through to read the comments to see what arguments are being made. Often these bystanders don’t hold a strong position one way or the other or haven’t heard the arguments but are generally interested in the analysis. You should be trying to convince them by pointing out the flaws in his reasoning or by establishing a stronger case against protectionism because that is how you get converts. Sure, you probably won’t convince John given his history. But, if the goal here is to win people over to the cause of liberty, childishly mocking a guy who makes a reasoned and consistent argument isn’t doing anyone any favors so stop it. If your goal is just to feel better by calling him out then carry on. Every prole needs their two-minutes hate.

                    3. I didn’t read the bylaws where it is my responsibility to hold the hands of morons who think protectionism is a good idea. If you feel the need to respond to John’s dipshittery, that’s your right. But, don’t confuse what you feel obliged to do with any responsibility of mine. All I wanted was a dumb defense from John. I got it. I was content after that.

                    4. I think you’ve missed the point of my argument entirely, but you’ve clarified your position and objectives for me to the extent I see my argument is irrelevant to your goals.

              2. Shit, if there was really a free market in the US a whole bunch of companies would never leave….

                1. That free market would need to include no minimum wage, and no mandates for companies to pay for health care or other benefits.

            2. Also, you don’t know what an appeal to authority is.

            3. “But you need to be able to explain why and why this is some new and different threat rather than just what Presidents have been doing for a very long time.”

              The Obots got beat up here, and properly so, for admitting that Obo was ‘just doing what Bush did’.
              So, John, I see we have the first Trump-quoque.

              1. And it’s not unconstitutional, so it’s totally ok!

                1. And he’s not president yet, so he’s just talking!
                  And he can’t really do this stuff without congress, so that makes it ok!

              2. Sure Obama got beat up. And go ahead and beat up on Trump for this. Just don’t act like it is a bigger deal than what it is. More importantly, you might want to try explaining why this is bad beyond buzz words. Is it a bad deal for the tax payers? Not really. The state of Indiana will make more money keeping the place open. They are just taking a smaller cut than they would have before but that is still more than 100% of nothing, which is what they would have gotten had the plant closed.

                Is this an example of favoritism? Yes. Companies that are not threatening to move are not getting their taxes cut. But, maybe should start. This shows in bright letters the idiocy of corporate taxes. Indiana would had they not agreed to let Carrier keep more of its own money had ended up with nothing and a thousand people out of their jobs. It seems to me the lesson of this is how corporate taxes need to be eliminated, not “oh my God cronyism”.

                I frankly hope Trump ends up being President Oprah, handing out tax breaks to all comers. But I am not a socialist who thinks everyone should be poor in the name of equal treatment either.

                1. Hey asshat, you didn’t even read the link before you attacked me, did you?

                  1. And your link doesn’t help. Threatening a tariff is neither illegal nor unconstitutional. All you are telling me is “but he is not a libertarian”. That is nice but everyone kind of knows that. So, why is telling companies that if they move their plants overseas, they won’t be able to sell those products back to the US necessarily bad?

                    The obvious reason is that it would cause companies to maintain more expensive operations here and thus raise the cost of production. Okay. But by how much? And since when is the cost of consumer goods the only end of government policy?

                    Beyond that, who is to say that the overseas plants are actually reflective of the true cost of making the goods. What if the company is getting a huge subsidy from the host country? Then, them moving overseas, really isn’t the “free market”. It is one country putting its thumb on the scale of the market. You can think that is good, but the debate is no longer about the free market, since the company isn’t moving because of legitimate market forces.

                2. “More importantly, you might want to try explaining why this is bad beyond buzz words.”

                  Yes, and I’m surprised you even asked.
                  Gov’t diddling in the market DOES NOT HELP. Period.

                3. I do find it ironic that progressive think that corporate taxes are an eternal wellspring of funding for government programs, and then wonder why the economy is so stagnant….

            4. But you need to be able to explain why and why this is some new and different threat rather than just what Presidents have been doing for a very long time.

              Way to try to frame the argument, John. “You can’t criticize Trump unless he promises to do something way worse than any previous president.”

              Let’s try this framing: explain where in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution the president is empowered to punish a company for moving jobs outside the borders of the U.S.

              1. Way to try to frame the argument, John. “You can’t criticize Trump unless he promises to do something way worse than any previous president.”

                Not true. I am not saying you can’t criticize Trump. I am saying don’t start shitting your pants and calling him a dictator rather than just another President who isn’t a Libertarian unless you can show how he is different.

                1. Did I call him a dictator? You’re the one pants shitting any time someone calls out Trump for stupid shit he says.Two can play this game, John.

                  1. How am I shitting my pants? I am asking you to explain why this is bad. Is asking for reasonable explanation and debate now pants shitting? Are you that terrified to defend your own beloved principles? The words “tell me why that is” really do terrify you.

                  2. Having libertarian principles on a libertarian website is just beyond the pale.

                    1. Having libertarian principles on a libertarian website is just beyond the pale.

                      Judging from the Chapman article on the CRA, that might be more true than you think.

                      Beyond that, it is not about having principles, it is about defending and justifying them instead of just appealing to them.

                    2. Judging from the Chapman article on the CRA, that might be more true than you think.

                      And you should always judge a magazine by one syndicated columnist that they publish on their website.

                    3. And you should always judge a magazine by one syndicated columnist that they publish on their website.

                      Part of the sum total, Zebulon: Chapman is symptomatic of a larger disease process. And they can cease publishing his dreck any time they wish. They are not contractually obligated to publish him, AFAIK.

                    4. They are also under no obligation to provide a safe space where only things you like are ever published. If this were a true free market, they’d be free to publish whatever they like and you’d be free to stop visiting the site if they push things you don’t like.

                    5. They are also under no obligation to provide a safe space where only things you like are ever published.

                      Where exactly did I ask for one, Sparky, and Chapman appears in other publications? Syndication., Sparky, Exactly What it Says on the Tin.

                      If this were a true free market, they’d be free to publish whatever they like and you’d be free to stop visiting the site if they push things you don’t like.

                      They already do, and I already am. YAY! Everyone’s happy! Now, Rip Taylor can leap out of a cake and start throwing confetti with peals of laughter….

                    6. Now, Rip Taylor can leap out of a cake and start throwing confetti with peals of laughter.

                      That would be pretty cool.

                      What I wonder most about is people who clearly have had enough continuing to visit the site. Doing something you despise on a regular basis is just something I don’t get. Now, I understand providing feedback to the content provider. But at this point it seems that the provider is not concerned enough about your wishes to change their programming. People have been bitching about Chapman for as long as I’ve been coming here. I’m not trying to say love it or leave it. I’m asking why people keep visiting a site they’re clearly fed up with.

                    7. What I wonder most about is people who clearly have had enough continuing to visit the site. Doing something you despise on a regular basis is just something I don’t get.

                      1) The comments are fucking amazing on this site. They are 80% of the value I get from coming to Reason. Without the comments, I would’ve been gone long ago.
                      2) They do publish good articles and good writers. Reason isn’t publishing 100% crap. It’s just disconcerting how awful some of the crap they’re publishing is.

                    8. Well, I think Reason does an excellent job overall, even if they publish some writers that I generally don’t agree with or like very much.

                      That they do is certainly not evidence that having libertarian principles on Reason.com is beyond the pale, which is what I responded to. Reason allows for a lot of diversity of viewpoint among their writers and that is a very good thing. I don’t know why so many are so convinced that publishing something somehow must mean that you approve of everything in it.

                    9. I don’t know why so many are so convinced that publishing something somehow must mean that you approve of everything in it

                      I’m with you, Zeb.

                    10. John is right in that we, as libertarians, should be able to defend our policies and positions with more than just “Because Fee Market”.

                      It’s not just libertarians that read and post here (especially with them throwing the articles up on Facebook) and your average person who thinks this Carrier deal is a great idea aren’t going to understand where we are coming from if we don’t articulate our viewpoint.

                    11. It’s not just libertarians that read and post here (especially with them throwing the articles up on Facebook) and your average person who thinks this Carrier deal is a great idea aren’t going to understand where we are coming from if we don’t articulate our viewpoint.

                      Have at it. I’m not interested. If I thought John was capable of arguing in good faith, maybe. But, he’s not interested in the libertarian arguments. He’s here to defend Trump and the GOP. He’s proven that time and again.

                    12. See above. You’re not arguing with John, you’re arguing with .

                    13. I’m sorry you don’t like my methods. I’m also sorry that Pluto is no longer a planet. But, neither affects my life even a little bit.

                2. John, you have to admit that protectionism is bad policy.

                  I doubt his 35% tax on companies leaving will ever pass Congress, so the whole thing is a non-starter.

                  Regardless, the problem with companies leaving the US is that we’re not competitive due to strict regulation, not that the American worker can’t compete, especially when you factor in transportation costs. I get that you want to see libertarians defend that point, but you are coming across, whether intended or not, like you don’t see anything wrong with the policy. It is bad economics, and I know you’re intelligent enough to see that.

                  1. He didn’t read the link, but still felt compelled to fight.

                  2. John, you have to admit that protectionism is bad policy.

                    I think it can be bad policy. But like everything else it is a question of the details and the circumstances. Allowing totally open international trade makes us more wealthy in the aggregate. There is no denying that. But, there is more to life than next quarter’s GNP or aggregate wealth.

                    If some marginal increase in aggregate wealth comes at the cost of huge economic and social dislocation, maybe that gain isn’t worth it. The other thing is that “aggregate wealth” is a product of whatever your aggregate is. By that I mean if we have a totally open market with say Mexico, that would produce greater overall prosperity for the two countries taken as a whole, but it might not work out so well for the US. Markets are more than anything great equalizers. So if Mexico sees a big increase in wealth, the US might not. The US might see its standard of living and overall wealth stagnate or come down a bit as the two economies start to harmonize with each other. Overall there is more wealth, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the US is wealthier.

                    Unless you are a true transnationalist and think any increase in overall wealth is all that matters, it is not as simple as the hacks for international trade make it.

                    1. Of course, let’s also disregard all of the basic questions of freedom and ownership, never mind whether or not it’s a wise economic decision.

                      Well done, John. You’ve exceeded my expectations today.

                    2. Of course, let’s also disregard all of the basic questions of freedom and ownership, never mind whether or not it’s a wise economic decision.

                      Lets not. The companies can still move. Why does the US owe them selling their products in this country if they are not made here. Again, the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate trade with foreign nations. If a company moves its production facilities overseas, the government has the power to make them pay a tariff to sell those products here.

                      They can still move there, they just have to pay the tax, which is all a tarriff is. How is making them pay a tariff any different than taxing anything else?

                      And as far as it being a bad economic decision, I addressed that above. Cheap consumer goods is not the only legitimate goal of economic policy.

                    3. If a company moves its production facilities overseas, the government has the power to make them pay a tariff to sell those products here.

                      Just because a government can do something, hardly means it should.

                      And for the record, he’s not just invoking tariffs here. Let’s be very clear: He’s saying that these tariffs would be a form of retribution.

                    4. Why does the US owe them selling their products in this country if they are not made here.

                      Um, because everyone should be able to buy and sell whatever they want to?

                    5. Except drugs. Or sex. Or medicine (without formal approval from an anointed prescription-writer). Or a health insurance policy to one’s liking. Or a vacation in Havana. Or a stake in a horse race. There are many restrictions on what one can buy in the US. Tariffs is just another type of meddling in our ability to freely associate – but with probably more drastic economic consequences.

                    6. I think it can be bad policy.

                      It is a question of time.

                      Sure, in the short term, the US could see it’s standard of living come down, but once Mexico equalizes, the growth from that point will eventually outpace that of the protected US. That is how the US became the economic powerhouse that it is, because the Founders thought long term.

                      Regardless, there are issues. One is that we tend to ignore protectionist policies by other governments, which hurts us both, but us more, and why the criticisms of NAFTA and TPP are often warranted.

                      I think you need to differentiate what issues are caused by Free Trade in the short term from issues caused by protectionism by other countries, our ridiculous regulatory state, and our ridiculous tax schemes.

                    7. Sure, in the short term, the US could see it’s standard of living come down, but once Mexico equalizes, the growth from that point will eventually outpace that of the protected US. That is how the US became the economic powerhouse that it is, because the Founders thought long term.
                      Over the long run sure. But in the long run we are all dead. Why should the people living now be expected to sacrifice their standard of living so that people in the future may or may not be a little more wealthy?

                      What do the people in this country owe to the people of Mexico? Nothing as far as I can see.

                    8. What do the people in this country owe to the people of Mexico? Nothing as far as I can see.

                      Nothing, and I never claimed that they did. I’m saying it is a long term investment for the American people. Free Trade works. Look at the United States. It is the classic example of Free Trade in action. NY on its own might be a pretty strong country, but able to trade freely with all other states, it is stronger, and so are the other states in the trade bloc we call the USA.

                      You can claim it is for us, you can claim it is for Mexico if you so desire, but facts do not care. Truly Free trade is a benefit to all parties involved in the long term, a fact regardless of intentions.

                    9. I’m saying it is a long term investment for the American people.

                      Sure. And maybe it is the right thing. But understand that others disagree. It is easy for you to talk up the “long term investment’, it is not like you are paying any price for it.

                      What you are saying is people living now should be expected to suffer real loss in their standard of living and future so that in the future America can be a bit richer than it is. Who gave you the right to expect them to do that? Why shouldn’t they be able to say no and keep their standard of living? They don’t owe future Americans anything beyond paying their own debts.

                    10. Sure. And maybe it is the right thing. But understand that others disagree.

                      I do understand that, and they’re wrong. The idea that people will suffer in the short term is playing Devil’s Advocate towards your assertion that they will, but under the assumption that it is the Free Trade part that makes people suffer, rather than what I believe actually makes people suffer, which is, the regulatory state, licensing, protectionism by countries that we’re supposed to be in Free Trade agreements with, etc. All of these things make the American worker less agile and less competitive. Free Trade in itself is not necessarily the issue. It is just the convenient boogeyman because it is easier to change than overhauling the rest of government.

                      We’re talking of things on a macro scale, think of Free Trade on the micro scale for a moment. A great example is Jim Crow laws and how they affected Free Trade among individuals. How exactly, from a Trade and economic prospective, were they good for anyone involved?

                    11. White people that weren’t racist or bigots were forced to give their money to people that were when they otherwise would have probably avoided those businesses? That’s about the only thing I can think of.

                  3. “I doubt his 35% tax on companies leaving will ever pass Congress, so the whole thing is a non-starter.”

                    I think Schmucky Chucky Schumer would support it…..

                  4. Deven-

                    Our Gov’t currently taxes people leaving the country and surrendering their citizenship at “death tax” rates- up to 55% for the rich… I wonder why all the people who say they are leaving the coumtry if (blank) is elected never do?

                3. I am saying don’t start shitting your pants and calling him a dictator

                  Who is doing that?

                  No one is shitting their pants. He’s the fucking president elect. Seems to me that he should have his feet held to the fire on everything he says.

              2. The punishment vehicle is not in the constitution but it is all over the federal tax code….

        2. Re: John,

          Why it is bad other than appeals to authority and intellectual purity.

          Without appeals to authority or intellectual purity, as you asked:

          What El Se?or Presidente is doing is bad for the following reasons:

          * It turns the business environment in the US into one where El Se?or Presidente has to be happy.
          * The above means that the business environment will be less stable instead of more, because who knows what will make El Se?or Presidente happy?
          * It will entice companies to receive special breaks and concessions by making fake announcements that they plan to “leave” the country.
          * It will increase the power of unions.

          I don’t see how it is illegal. It is not unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit protectionism.

          Economic Law does. Protectionism is based on BAD economics. The most protectionist countries in the world happen to be also the poorest. “Protectionism” means doing to yourself what other countries do to you in times of war – which is an economic blockade.

          1. Aw man, don’t indulge his “prove it to me” bullshit. Let him twist in the wind.

            1. Why on a libertarian site do you care about libertarian policy?

              Prove to me that liberty.

          2. t turns the business environment in the US into one where El Se?or Presidente has to be happy.

            No it doesn’t. There is more to business than moving overseas. It tells companies they can’t shift operations overseas without paying a price. That is it.

            The above means that the business environment will be less stable instead of more, because who knows what will make El Se?or Presidente happy?

            Why? The rule is “if you want to sell here, make it here”. That may not be good but it is not unstable or unpredictable.

            It will entice companies to receive special breaks and concessions by making fake announcements that they plan to “leave” the country.

            Yes, it will cause companies to demand their taxes be cut. Beautiful. Corporate taxes are idiotic and counter productive. I am totally fine with eliminating them by any means necessary.

            It will increase the power of unions

            I don’t see how. Most private sector jobs are not unionized. It is not like non union jobs wouldn’t be effected by such a rule.

            Sorry effort Mexican. You need to try again.

            1. John: “No it doesn’t. There is more to business than moving overseas. It tells companies they can’t shift operations overseas without paying a price. That is it.”

              I was under the impression that the government existed to protect our individual life, liberty, and property, so we can do with our property what we want, as long as we don’t deny others their rights. Instead, it sounds like the government has the final say on what we do with our property. In the end, does the government own everything and just let us use some of it, or do we create a government to protect what we have?

              John: “Why? The rule is ‘if you want to sell here, make it here’. That may not be good but it is not unstable or unpredictable.”

              So it doesn’t matter if the results are bad, as long as things are stable and predictable, like the economic production of the Soviet Union? Are you aware that foreign companies employ millions of Americans? Should they just leave and not support any jobs outside their borders? Do you realize the economic results we would have if we could buy only what we make in this country? The damage to our society, economy, and freedom would be horrendous.

              Man, that was four questions in a row. I’m starting to write like the Judge.

          3. * It turns the business environment in the US into one where El Se?or Presidente has to be happy.
            * The above means that the business environment will be less stable instead of more, because who knows what will make El Se?or Presidente happy?
            * It will entice companies to receive special breaks and concessions by making fake announcements that they plan to “leave” the country.
            * It will increase the power of unions.

            These particular reasons seem quite weak. Except perhaps the union argument, though on balance I would still expect unions to be greatly weakened under Trump. Plenty states are pretty hostile to unions so if Trump stops protecting unions the way Obama was, they’re toast even if businesses are stuck here.

            I’d rate “intellectual purity” as the most important reason, but word it as “principle”. Followed by the economics argument if we must get utilitarian about it.

            1. But, but, but, we must punish our enemies! Principles be damned!

              1. Keeping Americans employed is not punishing our enemies.

                I’ve see too much brain dead “lest outsource”, or “lets move production to another country shit” from companies in the past 30 years that never pans out and saves all the money that was projected.

                One company I worked at was so very proud of the money they saved outsourcing IT to Indian companies. They’re still working _years_ after I left to complete the project, that was supposed to roll out before I left…. The could have saved more money if they’d just lit piles of it on fire….

                1. BigW|12.5.16 @ 11:55AM|#
                  “Keeping Americans employed is not punishing our enemies.”

                  Correct.
                  Doing so by gov’t fiat is punishing US. Unless you really like higher prices.

                2. Keeping Americans employed is not punishing our enemies.

                  Didn’t actually read what Trump said, I take it? Trump said it would be “retribution” for leaving. But I’m glad you have a nice anecdote for us

        3. Who is saying it is necessarily illegal or unconstitutional? It’s just bad policy. And if you don’t think it is, I don’t know what you are doing here.

          It’s true that other presidents also generally promote trade and economic policies that libertarians don’t like. But on trade in particular, Trump’s rhetoric seems worse than most (yes, from the libertarian purity perspective).

          1. So Trumps claims of wanting to cut corporate income taxes is LESS libertarian than Obamas economic ideas…. REALLY??

            1. That’s not what I said. It’s a pretty short comment, you should be able to make it all the way through.
              I said I was specifically talking about trade. Most recent presidents, including Obama, have at least pretended to be for free trade.

        4. “Before you demand anyone try, explain why it is bad other than appeals to authority and intellectual purity”

          I think you have it backwards as to which side is “appealing to authority” regarding interference in a free market.

          Government interventions are deliberately meant to substitute individual autonomy with forced preferences for some particular parties over other particular parties. It is those who advocate such who are appealing to authority as it is physically impossible that they could ever have any actual proof that any one party SHOULD be favored over another to begin with.

          Their implication is that an outcome they prefer is superior to one that might or would occur in a pure free market. And that claim is nothing more than a appeal to authority as there is no way they can prove they are any wiser than anyone else in judging the relative value of outcomes.

          1. Government interventions are deliberately meant to substitute individual autonomy with forced preferences for some particular parties over other particular parties. It is those who advocate such who are appealing to authority as it is physically impossible that they could ever have any actual proof that any one party SHOULD be favored over another to begin with.

            Says you. That is nothing but a giant assumption on your part. I have a constitution that says the federal government has the right to control and regulate trade with foreign nations. I also have 250 years of history of the government doing just that. What do you have? “But I don’t like this” is all I can see.

            If an action is both legal, constitutional and has a long standing precedent behind it, you need to be able to say why it is a bad idea not “but you can’t do that”.

            1. ” Says you. That is nothing but a giant assumption on your part. I have a constitution that says the federal government has the right to control and regulate trade with foreign nations. I also have 250 years of history of the government doing just that. What do you have? “But I don’t like this” is all I can see.”

              What I can see is that you cannot address my actual point and are instead trying to change the subject.

              The subject is NOT whether the Constitution allows the government to intervene in markets.

              The point is that those who think that government SHOULD do so are the ones appealing to authority ? not those on the other side of the argument. The appeal to authority is claiming that they are wiser in determining the relative value of outcomes than that which would be rendered by the collective judgement of all those freely participating in the market. They think they are possessed of superior wisdom in evaluating the relative value of outcomes ? which is an entirely subjective concept to begin with. Their claim to superior wisdom in assigning relative worth will never be anything other than an appeal to authority.

            2. What do you have? “But I don’t like this” is all I can see.

              Well, there are all of the historical examples of free trade and economic liberty leading to unprecedented prosperity and wealth around the world.

              1. As I tried to explain, the United States being the most blatantly obvious. The only thing that made the US special is that the Founders created a HUGE trading bloc where goods and people moved freely, meanwhile they devised a system of government where it was very difficult to change that set up. Not that regressive assholes haven’t succeeded in some places.

                1. Right, but doesn’t the US work because we are all party to a single federal government with the power to regulate trade between the several states?

                  I don’t see every country submitting to a one world government, or that government being anywhere near as liberty minded as the US at its founding. Which leaves us at the negotiating table with trade partners who are more than happy to use our ridiculous and onerous regulations, licensing schemes, etc. against us and generally fuck us over.

                  (Mind, I’m not against Free Trade, but these are the issues that I think we are up against.)

            3. John, It is a bad idea for the same reason that almost all government action, especially coercive action is: Unintended consequences.

              If you think about the quote about a government that can give you anything can also take everything, then you can see where getting in bed with this stuff could have huge ramifications.

              Trump may think he is simply enticing companies to stay by offering sweet tax breaks. The challenge is to be able to forecast the unintended consequences of this misallocation of resources. Bastiat sums all of this stuff up very well.
              Carrier was making a sound business decision in allocating their capital towards the best return on investment. Were that capital allowed to be invested on Mars if it made more sense, then at least that was a response to a market signal. Reactions from coercion are only band aid and there is nothing to stem the tide of similar non-sound economic decisions being the order of the day. The problem of course, is that we often cannot forecast the unintended consequences until they are too ingrained to correct. These types of policies could end up being as damaging as the smoot Hawley tariff scheme. That led to war. And I know incentives are not the same as tariffs.

              1. “Unintended consequences.”

                Thousands of gym shoes, per quota. No body said they had to be different sizes.

          2. Trade policy as positive liberty… makes sense actually when you put it that way.

        5. #1: He doesn’t have the authority to raise tariffs. Only the House of Representatives does. Remember that little thing called the Constitution?

          #2: Tariffs hurt the consumer by making everything more expensive. The costs when a company moves are concentrated and easy to see, The benefits are diffuse and harder to track. But bottom line, the benefits outweigh the costs.

          #3: Reason is generally a Libertarian magazine. Therefore I would expect to see writers attack positions that anyone holds that are contrary to Libertarian positions.

  4. Every time I read Jesse, I have to put on Art Bell bumper music.

    Sets the mood.

  5. Reason is a part of the cover up, this blatantly anti-Trump article and dismissal of the as of yet not-disproven Pizzagate scandal is further proof of how Reason is in the bag for Hillary.

    Also guys, can you stop with the flash based ads, the firewall at work hates them and keeps crashing everything.

  6. Sure, it’s all fake news, Jesse. I’ll bet you’re face-deep in a large pan pizza right now. If you know what I mean, and I think you do.

    1. Deepdishgate

  7. I remember when Comedy Central would run promos stating that more Americans got their fake news from Jon Stewart and The Daily Show than any other source.

    I’m not about to hear lectures on journalistic integrity and ethics from people who think comedians should be elevated to political sages.

    1. Watch as he totally DESTROYS them.

    2. Yes. And when the Daily Show has been called out for selectively editing their interviews to make people look foolish, their response has always been “it is a fake news show and we are comedians”. Yet, as you point out, they are very proud of how many people get their news and views on things from their show.

      And now of course, those same people are all about ending the plague of fake news.

      1. Fake news is OK when we do it, but not when wrong-thinkers do it. That’s basically the extent of the argument from progressives.

    3. To say nothing of George Zimmerman, whose statements were completely spliced and re-arranged by NBC, Brian Williams’ flagrant disregard for the truth in reportage (commonly known as, “lying,”) and The (Not as she used to be) Perky Katie Couric and the hack job editing she and her producers did on those gun merchants.

      And that’s not even scratching the surface…

      1. Don’t you get that truth is contingent on message, not the other way around?

      2. You ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie, Doc. Sabrina Erdely, Shaun King, Brian Williams, CNN…

        The MSM wants us to talk about fake news, just not that kind of fake news, because that wasn’t the sort of fake news they were thinking about.

        It’s kind of like #askJPM. You have to wonder who thought this was going to end well.

      3. And y’all forgot to mention Dan Rather, Audi/Toyota “sudden acceleration”, GM’s exploding pick-ups, John McCain’s affair with a lobbyist, or the media’s total lack of interest in the IRS harassment of Tea Party 503’s that still can’t get “tax-free” status 6 years later…

  8. We need to license journalists like we do with all other professionals. Or are journalists not really professionals? Well now, that would explain it.

    1. Journalists are professionals like streetwalkers are professionals. Well, maybe not as much fun.

  9. It’s always funny when a new term is introduced and then all of a sudden, it’s constantly in the news. Now it’s “Fake news”, which is a term I don’t recall hearing much since Norm McDonald was on SNL until a week or two ago. Now it’s constant.

    1. At the end of the day, it’s problematic when the vast majority of people are drawn into a false narrative.

      1. Threadwinner.

      2. A false narrative, such as “Hands up! Don’t shoot!”

      3. I’ve noticed that most “progressives” I know will reliably parrot the latest buzzwords and phrases a day or so after they’ve appeared in the usual group of “progressive” media outlets. I know I’ve picked up a phrase here and there from libertarian publications, but they tend to be more evergreen terms like “regulatory bloat”. The “progressives” seem to have a sense of duty to take these words that the media feeds them and spread them through normal conversation as much as they can.

        Maybe conservatives do this too; I can’t say because I don’t know very many of them, and the ones I do know aren’t the kind of people who bring politics into almost every discussion.

    2. You know who started this recent fake news panic? You guessed it, Frank Stallone.

    3. Of the “alt-right” which used to comprise of a few thousand internet trolls and had little national influence until Hillary and the Dems decided to make them a campaign issue, and now everything is “alt-right”.

      1. “Alt-right” and “fake news” are more of the same type of scare tactics that the left uses to keep young voting blocs in line. Conservatives and libertarians from my generation (millennials) are sick and tired of SJWs and leftist media domination and are beginning to form their own movements and pages on the internet. They don’t fit the narrative of the liberal consensus at universities, so the left uses boogey-man tactics to try to suppress them as “racists” and “xenophobes”.

    4. +1 Gravitas

  10. These days “fake news” still means that, but it also gets applied to highly partisan outlets that may be sloppy with their facts; and content factories that just don’t care about their facts

    Little bit of column “A” and little bit of column “B”:

    A Newsweek editor admitted Wednesday that he and other staffers didn’t actually read their recalled commemorative “Madam President” election issue before it was published.

    Newsweek political editor Matthew Cooper said Wednesday on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that the magazine’s issue, which incorrectly anticipated a Hillary Clinton win, was not produced by Newsweek but by a third party.

    “Well, no one on our staff wrote that,” Cooper said. “Again, we subcontract out to a company.”

    1. Ha, delicious. Sounds like they only had one issue prepared in advance, which just adds to the schadenfreude.

    2. Columbia Journalism School:
      Our tradition is rooted in the bedrock values of journalistic ethics and excellence, but we are also leaders of cutting-edge journalistic innovation and media scholarship.
      https://journalism.columbia.edu/
      “Fake News” is innovation, right?

    3. “Cooper said it was “pretty common in the magazine industry” to subcontract special edition issues.”

      That better have been written in the US or Trump’s gonna be pissed!

  11. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I get my bestest news from 4chan.

    1. Twitter. Set up the feed right, and you’ll get news outlets and aggregators twittering the news while the Twitterers talk about it. It’s like a great big, enormous, stupid and less-funny commentariat.

      Tangent: My browser’s spell check has been dinging me like mad lately for the -or suffix. I’ve looked it up and it seems that, much like my much-mourned double-spacing after each sentence, some nameless They are ditching it for -er because only pedantic prigs can be bothered to remember which way is right.

      1. my much-mourned double-spacing

        There are also kids on your lawn.

        / Chicago Manual of Style

        1. Had someone violently arguing in favor of this. He also firmly believes in business cards when 99.9% of the people he communicates with are via Email.

  12. Flynn’s son is still neck-deep in this nonsense: http://www.politico.com/story/…..hop-232181

    1. “neck-deep”, as in…. “he tweeted something”.

      Yeah, that’s important. Kudos on that scoop bro.

  13. Some bonehead shooting a gun in a pizza place is not news at all outside of whatever little burg he lives in, where it might rate a back page mention somewhere.

    The whole “narrative news” game, which is what the real media does, is functionally no better than fake news or conspiracy theories. They elevate trivial background noise, carefully selected to fit an agenda, to national prominence. You can find any pattern you want in noise, that’s how conspiracy theories persist.

    1. “Bra Ket”. huh. that sounds pretty Russian-sounding to me. Someone check this guy’s IP address.

    2. Eeeeexactly. Narrative creation and selection of which news stories to bring to prominence is the far larger problem here, especially since people can find everything on the internet. For two days after the Ohio State shooting, I watched Good Morning America for an hour (my roommate watches it while we get ready). Twice they reported on the guy on the plane who went on a Trump rant. They didn’t even mention the Somali migrant who tried to kill dozens of people. This then drives people to the places reporting on it, like Breitbart.

      1. For two days after the Ohio State shooting …

        Well for one it wasn’t a shooting, except for the cop that shot the suspect. No dreaded “assault weapon” was involved, therefore the media will ignore this. It was also a proggie protected class that went off the rails, so this makes it doubleplus verboten.

        1. No dreaded “assault weapon” was involved

          So the knife handle was wood rather than black plastic?

          1. Correct. It was also missing that shoulder thing that goes up.

  14. Yesterday an idiot fired a rifle in a D.C. restaurant because he was trying to investigate “PizzaGate,”

    A for Awesome

  15. Fake news has been around for a long time.

    And the mainstream media has been engaging in it as well.

    Recall the instance where NBC rigged the gas tanks in Chevy trucks to explode in their story about how unsafe the trucks were.

    Or Dan Rather’s fake news about GWB.

    Or the Rolling Stone’s fake news about rape on a College campus.

    1. Here’s one of my favs.

  16. the country is governed by secret pedophile rings

    ok, i spent 2 minutes trying to work on a good Lord of the Rings reference. None pleased me. I hereby submit that project to you all now.

    1. Let me help you share the looooooad.

    2. One Ring to finger them all.

    3. Precious pedi-rings.

    4. Gandalf: “Frodo, have you ever been to an Elvish bathhouse?”

      1. Saruman: “Tell me Hobbit, have you ever been in an Orcish prison?”

    5. Only takes one ring to, in the darkness, bind them?

      1. i think this wins the “Jesus @#*$&@* Christ, you didn’t have to take it that far”-Award… by default

  17. Is this fake news?

    /narrows gaze.

  18. “This does not bode well for people who think they can find a fix to “the fake news problem,” given that clickbait and rumors and disinformation and sloppy reporting and so on are all different things.”

    There are two solutions to fake news:

    1) Overturn Citizens United.

    2) Vote for Democrats.

    “Fake News’ is the new Koch Brothers.

    Remember how if it weren’t for the Koch Brothers, neither libertarians nor the Tea Party would have cared about Obama using our future paychecks to bail out Wall Street?

    Fake News is like that. People can’t be trusted to think for themselves, and Exhibit 1 for that argument is people voting for Donald Trump. There has to be a reason why people would do that–and it can’t be because Hillary Clinton was a crook, and it can’t be because middle class, blue collar whites in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were sick of being demonized by the social justice warriors who run the Democratic party.

    It just can’t be.

    So we might as well blame Fake News.

    1. The one connection between the progressive’s hatred of the Koch Brothers and non-Daily Show “fake news” is that we know how to live and think for others and those rednecks in Alabama and Pennsyltucky need to shut up and listen to us. Elitism is an inherent and necessary trait to be a progressive.

      1. Proggies define themselves by who they are against. If everyone started drinking green tea, doing yoga, driving electric cars, and questioning their gender identity, they would lose their shit.

      2. “Elitism is an inherent and necessary trait to be a progressive.”

        Being a progressive is about using the coercive power of government to force various individuals to make sacrifices for the common good. Presuming to know what’s in other people’s best interests certainly requires a hefty dose of elitism

        Individuals can’t be trusted to make choices for themselves–that are in their own best interests. That’s why they need elites to make their choices for them–yeah, that’s what being a progressive is all about.

  19. Ironic that many of these type of fake news are ads in this very article. 10 celebrities you didn’t know died! withva picture of a living celebrity.

  20. Oh just great….

    Can you find any pizza joint that has a 12″ thin crust pizza that was pissed on by a cute 7-year old girl? smdh

    1. Not without some Alt-Right nutjob coming and raising a ruckus.

  21. The greatest fake news of 2016 is that fake news is a problem, that fake news is new news, and that the established news isn’t fake news.

    But let’s ban web sites we don’t like. See, take that Zuckerberg! You said it would be hard, but look how easy it is. If it publishes stuff that is inconvenient to the narrative, it’s fake news, and ban it. It’s not our fault that all of what we want to block is from the point of view of the right. Wikileaks – FAKE NEWS. It hurt Hillary, therefore it must be fake and evil.

    Did I use the phrase enough to achieve a fake news saturation for just one comment?

    1. “The greatest fake news of 2016 is that fake news is a problem, that fake news is new news, and that the established news isn’t fake news.”

      That’s excellent phrasing. Consider it stolen.

  22. But let’s ask the real question at the heart of this issue: would the pizzeria cater a gay wedding?

    1. Would they cater a wedding between otherkin? Well, of course it requires that all attendants wear a fursuit, why do you ask? No? NO!?! DISCRIMINATION! BOYCOTT. THEREOUGHTTABEALAW!

      1. Just like that flap over the article about the pastor of the two reality-TV hosts (you can see how much of an imprint it’s had on my mind, I can’t even remember which hack outfit published it), the gay wedding pizzeria story is pure schlock. The author went looking for a villain to out for a two-minute-hate session, couldn’t find one, instead found a frankly ludicrous angle involving pizza, and ran that instead. Nobody who isn’t already ideologically invested in swallowing hate and spitting misery would be interested in such stories, and yet they made national headlines on the backs of people who are. Those are fake news stories, but good luck getting the people hell-bent on extirpating fake news to admit it.

        1. The gay wedding pizzeria story was published in the South Bend Tribune. The reporter got the “anti-gay” comments from a pizzeria in Walkerton, Indiana. Having some familiarity with the area, my impression was that the sophisticates in South Bend were looking down on the hicks in a little town. When all of them are considered deplorables by the coastal elites.

  23. It was a lot more innocent back when “Fake News” only referred to headlines of a statue of Elvis on Mars, Bat Boy, or Hitler working at a gas station in Montana. There were no hipster pizzerias to shoot up back then either, so maybe that’s the problem.

  24. “Then nothing is fake news” is the answer to the headline, I think. Its what Mr incredible would say anyhow.

    1. Answer to the *implicit* question in the headline

  25. I’m not very optimistic on this subject. It is a very good thing that people are becoming aware that a lot of fake news is out there, but I really question how much most people care. From what I’ve seen, derpbook is the worst source of all this, but even after Zuckerberg was publicly raked over the coals for costing Hillary the election with fake news, I still see people sharing obviously bogus, clickbait-y stories (eg, “Jill Stein’s Audit Proves Trump Vote Fraud in WI, MI, PA!”). Either they’re dumber than I thought and they don’t realize the story is fake, or they just can’t help clicking on something they desperately want to believe.

    Unfortunately, I think most people are just more likely to respond to something that plays on their emotions in a way that reinforces their existing opinions, rather than to respond to a rigorous, dispassionate presentation of facts (especially if they don’t like the story those facts tell). And it’s much easier for news orgs to produce the former than the latter. It’s still possible to figure out the truth in any piece of news, provided you’re willing to be skeptical and to carefully examine how reports are sourced. But that doesn’t change the fact that news is an entertainment product, not an information product.

    1. A lot of people want to believe shit that corresponds to their existing worldview.

      1. Believe me there are aliens, but they just bypass the shit storm called “Earth”.

        1. I dunno, i look at what other ostensible human beings get up in arms about, and i can’t relate at all. The aliens are here and they are weird.

          1. It’s like going to Detroit or Camden, then coming back and telling you buddies don’t go there. Same idea, but on a galactic scale.

    2. I have no doubt that Zuckerberg and the rest of the proggie gang (MSNBC, Salon, HuffPo…) were all jizzing themselves about a Trump win-he’s great for their business. Otherwise, they would have the thankless task of having to defend Hillary for the next 4-8 years.

    3. There used to be very little competition in news sources. Most people had a newspaper and two or three national news networks to depend on. Whether at the bar, church, or the dinner table, when somebody won an argument, it was often because he had a reputation for being knowledgeable and he quoted his sources from memory with confidence.

      Everyday people fact checking each other on the fly didn’t start happening until smart phones, really. It’s only been about ten years!

      Before then, if all news was fake news–who would know the difference? They used to call the New York Times “the paper of record”, meaning that it was authoritative–but if they were wrong, who knew?

      The old saw went, “Don’t believe anything you read and only half of what you see (on TV)”.

      The common narrative has it that editorial standards have slipped in recent years; I think it’s more like the internet gives us the ability to fact check and debunk things like never before. I doubt The Times is any less accurate than it used to be; it’s just that, nowadays, it’s easy to fact check them. Before that, it was all fake news–as far as anyone knew.

      The first time I remember there being a sea change was after the Monkey Fishing story fell apart.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/…..shing.html

      I suspect plagiarism used to be more prolific, too. You just can’t get away with that shit so much anymore.

      1. Good point. While I think the current state of “biased hack punditry masquerading as objective reporting” is a more recent development, it doesn’t follow from that that the era prior was necessarily less immune to fake/badly sourced stories.

  26. Just want to say the back and forth with John in this thread was more thought provoking than the BS I get on network TV. You want analysis and debate ? Hit n Run.

  27. “Fruits were the bait of choice. Apples were good because they stayed on the hook well. Red Delicious were chosen over Granny Smith for the advantage in contrast. Other baits included kiwis, which were more deceptive, but trickier to cast due to their mushy flesh. Oranges worked well; their rinds combined with their bright coloring made them a natural choice. And after a long day of eating its own feces, what monkey could resist a tasty orange?

    Now came the cruel part. Once the bait was on the hook, I watched as the monkeyfisherman cast it onto the island, then waited. Not for long. The monkeys swarmed round the treat, and when the fisherman felt a strong tug he jerked the pole. I knew he had hooked one by the shriek it made?a primal yowl that set my hair on end. The monkey came flying from the trees, a juicy apple stapled to its palm.

    He didn’t actually land the monkey on the boat, since having a pissed-off, screeching monkey on the end of a hook running around a small skiff trying to bite you is the stuff of nightmares. He practiced a form of “catch and release.” Monkeys can’t really swim, but the water round the island was shallow. The line was cut and the monkey floundered back to await medical testing.”

    —-Monkeyfishing

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..shing.html

    They passed this off as real news. Seriously.

    When it was exposed, people were really upset about it.

    How could a journalist lie to us like that?!

    1. How did the people reading that not know it was all bullshit?

      1. This is an excellent piece by Jack Shafer, the editor who was supervising the writing of that Monkeyfishing article.

        “No single explanation can cover every case, but my guess is that most liars make things up for the simple reason that they don’t have the talent or the ability to get the story any other way.”

        . . .

        When Forman, who did go monkeyfishing, turned in a first, flat draft about his Florida Keys adventure, I encouraged him through several rewrites to add more writerly detail to increase the piece’s verisimilitude. Forman complied, inventing numerous twists to the tale and even confessing intense remorse for things he never did. (Addendum:In February 2007, writer Jay Forman contacted Slate toconfess that his entire story was untrue. See this article.)

        The lesson I learned isn’t to refrain from asking writers for detail but to be skeptical about details that sound too good or that you had to push too hard to get the writer to uncover or that are suspicious simply because any writer worth his salt would have put them in his first draft. All that said, it’s almost impossible for an editor to beat a good liar every time out.

        http://www.slate.com/articles/…..oject.html

        Notice, that addendum was added some four years later.

      2. The things that are most likely to be true aren’t necessarily the things that are most plausible or most popular. The things that are most likely to be true are the things that can withstand the most and best scrutiny.

        That’s the way the scientific method works. That’s the way evolution, markets, and I guess journalism works, too. There’s no shame in being lied to, but we can never be 100% certain that what we’re reading is true.

        Even the people we know to be honest may have been duped themselves. The monkeyfishing story is just an egregious example. We swallow little lies wholesale all the time without even knowing it. We repeat them. Repeat them here, and people at Hit & Run will call it out if it’s horseshit.

        That’s what I love about Hit & Run. This place makes me smarter–by submitting what I believe to more and better scrutiny.

        1. I don’t disagree that people can be duped by all kinds of things, but egregious examples like the monkeyfishing one just seem so out there to me.

          “That’s what I love about Hit & Run. This place makes me smarter–by submitting what I believe to more and better scrutiny.”

          Cheers to that!

  28. You put up that movie cover on the late Robert Anton Wilson’s recommend’n, didn’t you? Or, knowing how hip you are to stuff, are you the one who recommended it to him?

  29. Fake news does not cite credible sources; or any sources for that matter.
    Note to the young: a link to a web site is not citing a credible source.

    1. “A link to a web site is not citing a credible source”.

      That isn’t so, and I can prove it!

      http://www.breitbart.com/

  30. Morons decided that each other’s tweets were realer than real. This is what you get.

  31. Have we reached Peak Fake News?
    Not by a long shot.

  32. So…..

    Did the author of this post investigate the veracity of the story claiming that the NYPD has uncovered nastiness on Weiner’s computer or has it just been ‘decided’ that there’s nothing there move along? Surely someone could call the NYPD and ask about this??

    It’s not a conspiracy theory if it is based on verifiable fact.

  33. Mainstream news….CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc etc aren’t considered ‘fake’ however the BS coming out of these outlets isn’t exactly honest a great deal of the time. Agendas and narratives are being pushed via the so called ‘real news’ outlets every day- in the tradition of Edward Bernays.

    He who owns the purse strings gets to influence the narratives according to agendas.

    I see the snake from jungle book- saying “trust in me”.

  34. All that is left for reason.com to find three news articles dubbed as fake, find some nugget of truth in ’em and declare them non-fake, and then proceed to declare the MSM as overreacting to fake news when none can be found.

    Did that with the “hate crimes” edition earlier. Hundreds of “hate crimes” reported. Three or seven were found not be crimes or “hate crimes” therefore there are no “hate crimes”

    Mission Accomplished.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.